We've been having a discussion of sorts in our WC in Negro Leagues, and I'd just like to know what exactly constitutes tanking? I'd say a team with sub-$20m payroll and a winning percentage hovering around .300 should qualify. Especially after 2 100-loss seasons in a row.

There is no black and white definition. Its a classic socialism problem. The powers that be declare that they want to redistribute talent via the amateur draft instead of having a bidding process. The intentions are nice and sweet, tugging at our Robin Hood hearts, but like all artificial intervention, new problems are created. Now you have the incentive to game the draft. Now a person can't run a low payroll style without being accused of gaming the draft, and its hard to blame them for that accusation eh? Everything would be a lot easier if we could just bid on players. Ah well....set some minimum wins rules and hope for the best.

A few people are addressing it like, "well what other strategies are there?", and one guy is saying "it's called rebuilding; if you don't like it leave". It's my first season in the world, and I took over an abysmally handled franchise with mediocre talent and a lot of overpaid players and signed a whole mess of FAs and it was criticized pretty harshly. I've tried the whole "rebuilding" thing and it just didn't sit right with me - now, if I have a bad team I try and fix that through trades and signings while also trying to maintain a respectable crop of prospects. It's not easy, but the team I've taken over is slightly improved and will be even better when we lose all of the garbage contracts (if I stay in the league past this season). I'm not saying that the "do everything you can to win now" strategy is the only one people should use; I've seen some people develop teams without tanking that has produced perennial powerhouses, but I'll never think of tanking as a fair strategy. I'm a Houston Astros fan - it's bad enough I have to see it in the MLB; I don't want to have to deal with how lopsided it makes an HBD league.

If you're rebuilding by trying to improve every season and win 70-75-80 games, while other teams are rebuilding by battling for the #1 pick and signing $60M worth of IFA while losing 100 games, you're at a disadvantage. It's hard to argue with sensible statements such as "if you rebuild its not tanking." But I might be tempted to find a world with solid multi-season MWR.

Good question, and I've played enough seasons and in enough leagues - many very good and some very bad - to know it when I see it. But can I define it? Not easily. But generally, it's when an owner makes no effort to win to manipulate the ML level team's win percentage DOWN to gain an unfair advantage in the draft. Generally, "tanking" involves more than one season. There are some really awful seasons out there that are exceptions. If you take over a team that the previous owner demolished, and a series of really bad and predatory trades were approved, you get stuck with a mess - bad contracts, no talent, etc. In that circumstance, it's impossible to win the first season. The key is what happens the NEXT season. But I completely agree that the best bet is to find leagues with min. win rules, or other rules to really snuff out that garbage. It's also crucial to find leagues where trades are NOT routinely predatory. I am in 3 leagues now - 2 of which are outstanding, 1 of which is the worst league I've ever seen. I committed to some decent owners in that league to rebuild a team that got unethically wrecked for 5 seasons. In season 4 now. One more to go, and I'm finished. Never again will I join such a league.

there's trying to win, soft tanking, and tanking.
trying to win should be obvious- playing your best guys at the ml level
tanking, to me, is hard to define, but examples of blatant tanking are: playing players out of position (like c at ss), signing aaa guys to be your ml guys, shooting for a top 3 pick every season, etc
soft tanking is probably anything in between. if you're not trying to put your best players together on your ml squad, you're not trying to win.
i didn't mention budget or prospect spending because someone can have a superteam of ml players at a low payroll. and you can have a good ml team and still sign decent intls if you have cap room.
i play in mwr worlds and like them very much.

It's hard to lose 100 games if you're trying to win. It's even harder to do multiple seasons in a row. If someone manages to do it, they either suck at HBD or they're tanking. If they suck at the game, they'll have a high payroll and low win total. If they're tanking, they'll have a low payroll and low win total.

I am currently being accused of not trying to win and/or tanking simply because I have the lowest payroll in the world. However, there are a dozen teams who are going to finish with fewer wins than I have. I think there are owners who are jealous/upset when other teams win more games they do with a significantly lower payroll. The suggestion has been made to start a minimum payroll rule just because of my team. I am seriously considering leaving the world if they do vote that in.

I've wondered about tying winning with budget - win more, higher attendance therefore more money. Lose 100 games, no one is gonna watch that cr@p. If an owner bails after a season the franchise resets budget. Might make aiming for higher draft choices less appealing by making the cost higher and challenge of rebuilding via that strategy more difficult.

Then those who suck will just bail on their teams. Unfortunately, a lot of worlds have trouble filling so they need owners who might not be so good at HBD. I think that would create an alias breeding ground so owners could reset their budgets after tanking/sucking.